Smell the Glove (if that’ll help you solve the mystery)

By Paul Lukas, on October 22nd, 2009

Got an interesting note the other day from reader Matthew Strauss, who attended last Sunday’s Pats/Titans game. I’ll let him explain:

I was lucky enough to get field-level seats right next to the tunnel where the Patriots ran in and out of. After the game, when the team was running off the field, I felt something go splat next to my foot. When I looked down, it was a game-worn glove from one of the players. Naturally I scooped it right up. The only catch is that I have no idea whose it is.

This is the glove model in question. The two players I could immediately recognize running off the field around the time I grabbed it were Julian Edelman and Junior Seau, but it wasn’t from either of them. I didn’t see any RBs, LBs, or WRs wearing anything quite like it. It’s a size 5XL, so I’m assuming it came of a pretty big dude.

I’d be curious to see if we can narrow down where it came from. Perhaps the collective power of Uni Watch can solve the mystery of the glove’s owner, given the size, style, color, etc.

Now, I could cheat by asking a few people at Reebok, who could probably give me the answer in 20 seconds. But where’s the fun in that? Get crackin’, people — I’ll give a free membership card to the first person who can solve the mystery of the Matthew’s glove.

Membership Update: Speaking of memberships, new batch of cards mailed out yesterday, including Alan Borock’s Dolphins treatment, shown at right. Somewhat incredibly, this is the first card we’ve done with Miami’s current aqua design. Surprised it hasn’t been requested more often.

As always, you can see the full gallery of card designs here, and you can sign up to get your own card here.

Uni Watch News Ticker: Some patent applications are more interesting than others (big thanks to my buddy Jon Hammer). ”¦ Want to vote on the best hockey mask in the NHL? Do it here (with thanks to Tim O’Connor). ”¦ Major historical find by Dan McCue, who sent along this item about the first football game west of the Mississippi, played in 1889 between Grinnell and the University of Iowa. Look at those hats! ”¦ Oh. My. God. Further info on the Trail Smoke Eaters here (big thanks to Ryan Connelly). ”¦ Very odd two-tone shoes being worn by Kevin Durant the other night (with thanks to Matt Mitchell). ”¦ Titans coach Jeff Fisher wore a Peyton Manning jersey while introducing Tony Dungy at a function. ”¦ Congrats to webmaster John Ekdahl and his wife Amy, who just got back from their honeymoon in Ireland. Lots of pics here. ”¦ The Cowboys have added a practice jersey sponsor (with thanks to Mitchell Goodman). ”¦ Craig Dodge wore his vertically striped socks to the Broncos/Pats game two Sundays ago. That photo is from his full-on game report. ”¦ Powerful article about the Redskins’ sideline mascot here — recommended reading. ”¦ Here’s a Halloween costume idea worth stealing: You can go as the ghost of Ted Williams. Note the throat scar and icicles (as modeled by Adam Fritzen). ”¦ Oregon will reportedly be going with this look on Saturday. ”¦ Pacific will wear a special “Stockton” jersey on December 9th. “As a Pacific alum, I’m not a fan of this,” says Aaron Davis. “It seems like a desperate attempt at fixing a rift between a community and the university it houses, a relationship that’s always been strained in Stockton.” ”¦ Check out this photo — simple but gorgeous. “My buddy took the photo during Expos spring training West Plam Beach in 1982,” says Joel Kirstein. “Pretty funny seeing a very young Terry Francona and a very young Cal Ripken Jr., both with full heads or hair!” … Phillies prospect Dominick Brown has been playing for the Scottsdale Scorpions in the Arizona Fall League, and boy does he Get Itâ„¢ (with thanks to Josh Miller). ”¦ Wow, look at that gorgeous sea of green gridiron. That’s from Vince Lombardi’s first game as Packers head coach in 1959. ”¦ What does this helmet logo stand for? Jacob Reed explains: “This is the helmet for Cherokee High School in Cherokee, North Carolina. The school system is operated by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, a sovereign governing nation (susceptible to Federal Laws, and some state laws). On their helmets, they use the Cherokee syllabary. The letters on the helmet are pronounced tsa-la-gi (roll the t and s together), so it sounds like sssa-la-gee. It means Cherokee.”

Weekend Update: Uni Watch will be closed on Friday in memory of my friend Charlie, whose funeral I’ll be attending tomorrow afternoon. As soon as the services are over, I’m off to Louisiana, where I’ll be spending the rest of the weekend reporting an ESPN story that I think you’ll all enjoy once it’s finished. Phil will be running things over the weekend, as usual, and I should be back by Monday (which, incidentally, is when my annual NBA season-preview column will be running on ESPN). See you then.

Now we know why Galloway was such a nothing for the Pats — his receiver gloves were 7 sizes too big!

Gusto44|
October 22, 2009 at 9:13 am |

re: Oregon’s football uniform selection

Another horrible uniform choice by Oregon, it’s sad when bad uniforms are the first thing which comes to mind when discussing Oregon football. How about actually returning to a BCS bowl game? The Ducks aren’t even close to being the most successful college program in the state.

Dave Plante|
October 22, 2009 at 9:13 am |

I am going to guess that the glove belonged to tackle Nick Kaczur, # 77. I have a pic with him in it, showing that he is wearing that type of glove. I’ll send it via email. He is also a really big guy, weighing in around 315…..

Interesting item here…take a look at the website for the video game Quick Hit Football and notice the customized uniforms on each of the NFL players in pictures that are cycled through in the background (for side by side comparison, I’ve put them all together here). According to the bottom of the page they don’t have any affiliation with the NFL, which explains the fake unis, but they also don’t have any association with the NFLPA, so how can they get away with this? Individual deals with each player?

[quote]Oregon will reportedly be going with this look on Saturday.[/quote]

lets exclude the “o” on the helmet and possible neon yellow on the cleats…is this the first time (although i’m sure it’s not) the u of zero is going with a uniform (jersey/pants) that doesn’t even include one official school color?

Love the Cherokee-language helmet logo. I wish that sort of thing were more common — for example, at international events like the World Baseball Classic. It’s not like English-speaking fans are going to wonder what team that is that’s wearing red hats with yellow Chinese lettering instead of the letter “C”.

Thanks for the link to the Chief Zee story. Still, the guy should feel lucky that the Skins haven’t sued him into bankruptcy like they have other fans.

I used to be in favor of getting rid of the name “Redskins.” But recent events have changed my mind completely. Now I’m in favor of getting rid of the whole damn team.

Ricko|
October 22, 2009 at 9:34 am |

[quote comment=”355818″][quote]Oregon will reportedly be going with this look on Saturday.[/quote]

lets exclude the “o” on the helmet and possible neon yellow on the cleats…is this the first time (although i’m sure it’s not) the u of zero is going with a uniform (jersey/pants) that doesn’t even include one official school color?

i guess the kids like it[/quote]

But what a great look for black and white television!

Namhob|
October 22, 2009 at 9:49 am |

“Here’s a Halloween costume idea worth stealing: You can go as the ghost of Ted Williams.”

My only complaint would be that Teddy Ballgame wouldn’t have worn batting gloves…I still love this one:

[quote comment=”355809″]Paul – Enjoy Louisiana! If you want to know some good places to eat, let me know![/quote]

He’d better have breakast at Mother’s.

TommyD|
October 22, 2009 at 9:52 am |

[quote comment=”355817″]Interesting item here…take a look at the website for the video game Quick Hit Football and notice the customized uniforms on each of the NFL players in pictures that are cycled through in the background (for side by side comparison, I’ve put them all together here). According to the bottom of the page they don’t have any affiliation with the NFL, which explains the fake unis, but they also don’t have any association with the NFLPA, so how can they get away with this? Individual deals with each player?[/quote]

UGH, I don’t like seeing Brian Westbrook in a different uniform, but I suppose it’s only a matter of time… congrats to Brian Dawkins on making the right choice to leave the sinking ship.

But most importantly…

CONGRATULATIONS to the BACK TO BACK NATIONAL LEAGUE CHAMPION Philadelphia Phillies!

EddieAtari|
October 22, 2009 at 9:53 am |

That old football photograph got me singing Steely Dan: “No, I’m never gonna do it without the fez on, Oh no…”

[quote comment=”355826″]Love the headline. “Smell The Glove” is a great album, right up there with “Intravenous De Milo”.[/quote]

and “Shark Sandwich.”

Did anyone else notice that Joe Torre was wearing his warm up jacket partially unzipped last night? The zipper goes right down the middle of the upright part of the “d” and makes it look like the jacket says “dodlger’s.” Whoops.

I noticed you had three people requesting the number 13 in this round of membership cards. Good to see such a high percentage of non-triskaidekaphobics here.

Jim Bullard|
October 22, 2009 at 10:48 am |

From the Redskins Article:

“The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to hear a lawsuit arguing that the “Redskins” trademark violates standards of decency. And the U.S. Senate passed a resolution this month recognizing “years of official depredations, ill-conceived policies, and the breaking of covenants by the federal government regarding Indian tribes.” An apology was made for “the many instances of violence, maltreatment and neglect inflicted on native peoples.”

As an attorney nay, American, the idea of the Supreme Court deciding what is and is not decent disgusts me even more than the ‘Redskins’ moniker itself.

“To Voicer Mark Weston: Players started wearing their pants down because toxic dyes infected their skin when they were spiked. Sanitary socks worn under stirrup socks encouraged more players to show their socks until safer dyes were developed. Now, players choose between both types based on superstition.”

Must be a uni-watcher

ClubMedSux|
October 22, 2009 at 11:00 am |

the review for “Shark Sandwich” was merely a two word review which simply read “Shit Sandwich”

Hmm… Not sure what happened with that link there but it’s supposed to be Joe “Mama” Besser.

The Jeff|
October 22, 2009 at 11:05 am |

[quote comment=”355817″]Interesting item here…take a look at the website for the video game Quick Hit Football and notice the customized uniforms on each of the NFL players in pictures that are cycled through in the background (for side by side comparison, I’ve put them all together here). According to the bottom of the page they don’t have any affiliation with the NFL, which explains the fake unis, but they also don’t have any association with the NFLPA, so how can they get away with this? Individual deals with each player?[/quote]

Actually if you check the news section, the latest article mentions the signing of deals with around 100 former players and then 5 current ones.

[quote comment=”355818″][quote]Oregon will reportedly be going with this look on Saturday.[/quote]

lets exclude the “o” on the helmet and possible neon yellow on the cleats…is this the first time (although i’m sure it’s not) the u of zero is going with a uniform (jersey/pants) that doesn’t even include one official school color?

i guess the kids like it[/quote]

Only thing I like about this look, is the fact that it’s a matte black. Aside from that, this is my least favorite combination to date. Good thing they’re playing good football, detracts from some of the more undesirable uniform combinations. Week 3 attire still my favorite look thus far.

Shane|
October 22, 2009 at 11:09 am |

Based on size alone, I’d guess that glove came off of Vince Wilfork’s paws.

Robert Eden (formerly Robert in Dallas)|
October 22, 2009 at 11:47 am |

[quote comment=”355841″]From the Redskins Article:

“The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to hear a lawsuit arguing that the “Redskins” trademark violates standards of decency. And the U.S. Senate passed a resolution this month recognizing “years of official depredations, ill-conceived policies, and the breaking of covenants by the federal government regarding Indian tribes.” An apology was made for “the many instances of violence, maltreatment and neglect inflicted on native peoples.”

As an attorney nay, American, the idea of the Supreme Court deciding what is and is not decent disgusts me even more than the ‘Redskins’ moniker itself.[/quote]

I second the thought.

Juggernaut|
October 22, 2009 at 11:49 am |

I’m going to go with Vollmer, he’s a beast of a man and probably has paws more suited for a basketball player at his height…

[quote comment=”355826″]Love the headline. “Smell The Glove” is a great album, right up there with “Intravenous De Milo”.[/quote]
This tasteless cover is a good indication of the lack of musical invention within. The musical growth rate of the band cannot even be charted. They are treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry.

[quote comment=”355841″]As an attorney nay, American, the idea of the Supreme Court deciding what is and is not decent disgusts me even more than the ‘Redskins’ moniker itself.[/quote]

As an attorney, I’d have expected that you would understand that the Supreme Court is not, in fact, deciding what is and is not decent. Rather, the Supreme Court is deciding whether a particular group of plaintiffs have standing to challenge the trademark status of the Redskins name. Not decency, but standing is at issue here.

Now, if the Supreme Court upholds the plaintiffs’ right to sue — which the Supreme Court almost certainly will not, since denying standing is the chief instrument by which the activist conservative majority on the Supreme Court has been radically rewriting American law for the last twelve years — then decency will come into play in an appeals court hearing, and the Redskins will be toast. This is because trademark law prohibits the government from giving trademark protection to offensive or indecent marks, and has since the first trademark law was enacted in 1870.

Also, as an attorney, I would expect you to understand that there is no conceivable First Amendment or free speech dimension to the Redskins case. The Redskins’ right to call themselves the Redskins is not at issue. Even if the Skins lose their standing argument in the Supreme Court, and then lose the subsequent trademark appeal, the Redskins will still have the absolute free-speech right to call themselves the Redskins. All the team will lose is a government-issued license to use the courts to enforce a monopoly on the commercial use of the name and logo.

Crying “free speech!” over the Redskins trademark case is exactly analogous to crying “free press!” because the government doesn’t let Paul host this blog on government servers for free. The lack of government assistance to help you speak is not a restriction on your freedom of speech.

pflava|
October 22, 2009 at 12:11 pm |

As much as I like the 80’s Expos uniforms with the side stripes, this is the absolute greatest uniform they ever had. In fact, it’s one of the greatest uniforms ANY baseball team ever had!

JTH|
October 22, 2009 at 12:16 pm |

[quote comment=”355856″]As much as I like the 80’s Expos uniforms with the side stripes, this is the absolute greatest uniform they ever had. In fact, it’s one of the greatest uniforms ANY baseball team ever had![/quote]
The 80s version did have one aspect that was superior to its predecessor. The front numbers lined up with the logos.

JimV19|
October 22, 2009 at 12:17 pm |

[quote comment=”355855″][quote comment=”355841″]As an attorney nay, American, the idea of the Supreme Court deciding what is and is not decent disgusts me even more than the ‘Redskins’ moniker itself.[/quote]

As an attorney, I’d have expected that you would understand that the Supreme Court is not, in fact, deciding what is and is not decent. Rather, the Supreme Court is deciding whether a particular group of plaintiffs have standing to challenge the trademark status of the Redskins name. Not decency, but standing is at issue here.

Now, if the Supreme Court upholds the plaintiffs’ right to sue — which the Supreme Court almost certainly will not, since denying standing is the chief instrument by which the activist conservative majority on the Supreme Court has been radically rewriting American law for the last twelve years — then decency will come into play in an appeals court hearing, and the Redskins will be toast. This is because trademark law prohibits the government from giving trademark protection to offensive or indecent marks, and has since the first trademark law was enacted in 1870.

Also, as an attorney, I would expect you to understand that there is no conceivable First Amendment or free speech dimension to the Redskins case. The Redskins’ right to call themselves the Redskins is not at issue. Even if the Skins lose their standing argument in the Supreme Court, and then lose the subsequent trademark appeal, the Redskins will still have the absolute free-speech right to call themselves the Redskins. All the team will lose is a government-issued license to use the courts to enforce a monopoly on the commercial use of the name and logo.

Crying “free speech!” over the Redskins trademark case is exactly analogous to crying “free press!” because the government doesn’t let Paul host this blog on government servers for free. The lack of government assistance to help you speak is not a restriction on your freedom of speech.[/quote]

Not starting a political comment, just making a correction: the Supreme Court is not a conservative majority, althought the chief justice is a conservative.

Now back to the unis.

James P.|
October 22, 2009 at 12:26 pm |

[quote comment=”355822″][quote comment=”355809″]Paul – Enjoy Louisiana! If you want to know some good places to eat, let me know![/quote]

He’d better have breakast at Mother’s.[/quote]

Depends on what pare of the state he is going…Though my guess is he is either going to New Orleans or Baton Rouge as those are really the only two areas ESPN thinks exist in the state. I admit, they do go to Shreveport and Ruston, but I don’t think anywhere else. ;-)

=bg=|
October 22, 2009 at 12:31 pm |

[quote comment=”355854″][quote comment=”355826″]Love the headline. “Smell The Glove” is a great album, right up there with “Intravenous De Milo”.[/quote]
This tasteless cover is a good indication of the lack of musical invention within. The musical growth rate of the band cannot even be charted. They are treading water in a sea of retarded sexuality and bad poetry.[/quote]

[quote]Not starting a political comment, just making a correction: the Supreme Court is not a conservative majority, althought the chief justice is a conservative.[/quote]

um…lets see

John Roberts (Chief Justice) – nominated by Bush the second – conservative

John Paul Stevens – nom. by Ford – considered liberal

Antonin Scalia – nom. by Reagan – conservative

Anthony Kennedy – Reagan – conservative

Clarence Thomas – Bush I – conservative

Ruth Bader Ginsberg – Clinton – liberal

Stephen Breyer – Clinton – liberal

Samuel Alito – Bush II – conservative

Sonia Sotomayor – Obama – (too early to tell, but considered extremely liberal)

….

hmmm — now, of course, not every ruling will have every justice voting the way i just described them above, but those are most certainly their leanings…and by my count, that’s at least 5-4 “conservative”

not sure how that’s not considered a majority

jim — you wanna set me straight…or do i have that about right?

James P.|
October 22, 2009 at 12:36 pm |

[quote comment=”355825″][quote comment=”355822″][quote comment=”355809″]Paul – Enjoy Louisiana! If you want to know some good places to eat, let me know![/quote]

He’d better have breakast at Mother’s.[/quote]

I have, several times (debris!). But I’m not gonna be in New Orleans. Gonna be in Baton Rouge.[/quote]

[quote comment=”355857″][quote comment=”355856″]As much as I like the 80’s Expos uniforms with the side stripes, this is the absolute greatest uniform they ever had. In fact, it’s one of the greatest uniforms ANY baseball team ever had![/quote]
The 80s version did have one aspect that was superior to its predecessor. The front numbers lined up with the logos.[/quote]

I think that’s part of why I prefer the later model as well. Those early jerseys, although good, just seemed to be missing something IMHO.

[quote comment=”355861″][quote]Not starting a political comment, just making a correction: the Supreme Court is not a conservative majority, althought the chief justice is a conservative.[/quote]

um…lets see

John Roberts (Chief Justice) – nominated by Bush the second – conservative

John Paul Stevens – nom. by Ford – considered liberal

Antonin Scalia – nom. by Reagan – conservative

Anthony Kennedy – Reagan – conservative

Clarence Thomas – Bush I – conservative

Ruth Bader Ginsberg – Clinton – liberal

Stephen Breyer – Clinton – liberal

Samuel Alito – Bush II – conservative

Sonia Sotomayor – Obama – (too early to tell, but considered extremely liberal)

….

hmmm — now, of course, not every ruling will have every justice voting the way i just described them above, but those are most certainly their leanings…and by my count, that’s at least 5-4 “conservative”

not sure how that’s not considered a majority

jim — you wanna set me straight…or do i have that about right?[/quote]
It’s more like 4-4-1, with Kennedy as the tie.

Speaking of the Dolphins’ aqua tops, someone here the other day put forth the claim that Miami’s aqua was originally more green that it is today.. and then a Sports Illustrated cover from 1966 was produced on which a debut-season Dolphin is wearing a jersey that looks virtually sky blue – seemingly disproving the “more green” theory, but which could be just a weird anomaly (it doesn’t even look aqua at all).

I’ve wondered about this before: have the Dolphins ever recalibrated their aqua.. has the shade evolved over the years? I just can’t seem to find evidence to prove anything. Looking at the Topps cards from ’67, the aqua shade appears exactly the same as it is today – same blue/green balance. Is it just a case of different lighting situations throwing a different cast on the color, thus misleading us into suspecting a color shift?

JimV19|
October 22, 2009 at 12:52 pm |

[quote comment=”355865″][quote comment=”355861″][quote]Not starting a political comment, just making a correction: the Supreme Court is not a conservative majority, althought the chief justice is a conservative.[/quote]

um…lets see

John Roberts (Chief Justice) – nominated by Bush the second – conservative

John Paul Stevens – nom. by Ford – considered liberal

Antonin Scalia – nom. by Reagan – conservative

Anthony Kennedy – Reagan – conservative

Clarence Thomas – Bush I – conservative

Ruth Bader Ginsberg – Clinton – liberal

Stephen Breyer – Clinton – liberal

Samuel Alito – Bush II – conservative

Sonia Sotomayor – Obama – (too early to tell, but considered extremely liberal)

….

hmmm — now, of course, not every ruling will have every justice voting the way i just described them above, but those are most certainly their leanings…and by my count, that’s at least 5-4 “conservative”

not sure how that’s not considered a majority

jim — you wanna set me straight…or do i have that about right?[/quote]
It’s more like 4-4-1, with Kennedy as the tie.[/quote]

That’s more like it, Chris and Phil. Now back to unis?

JTH|
October 22, 2009 at 12:53 pm |

[quote comment=”355869″][quote comment=”355865″][quote comment=”355861″][quote]Not starting a political comment, just making a correction: the Supreme Court is not a conservative majority, althought the chief justice is a conservative.[/quote]

um…lets see

John Roberts (Chief Justice) – nominated by Bush the second – conservative

John Paul Stevens – nom. by Ford – considered liberal

Antonin Scalia – nom. by Reagan – conservative

Anthony Kennedy – Reagan – conservative

Clarence Thomas – Bush I – conservative

Ruth Bader Ginsberg – Clinton – liberal

Stephen Breyer – Clinton – liberal

Samuel Alito – Bush II – conservative

Sonia Sotomayor – Obama – (too early to tell, but considered extremely liberal)

….

hmmm — now, of course, not every ruling will have every justice voting the way i just described them above, but those are most certainly their leanings…and by my count, that’s at least 5-4 “conservative”

not sure how that’s not considered a majority

jim — you wanna set me straight…or do i have that about right?[/quote]
It’s more like 4-4-1, with Kennedy as the tie.[/quote]

That’s more like it, Chris and Phil. Now back to unis?[/quote]
Sure, but one more thing…

As Phil said, “now, of course, not every ruling will have every justice voting the way i just described them above, but those are most certainly their leanings.”

Kennedy tends to cast a conservative vote more often than not.

Carl G|
October 22, 2009 at 1:03 pm |

[quote comment=”355870″][quote comment=”355869″][quote comment=”355865″][quote comment=”355861″][quote]Not starting a political comment, just making a correction: the Supreme Court is not a conservative majority, althought the chief justice is a conservative.[/quote]

um…lets see

John Roberts (Chief Justice) – nominated by Bush the second – conservative

John Paul Stevens – nom. by Ford – considered liberal

Antonin Scalia – nom. by Reagan – conservative

Anthony Kennedy – Reagan – conservative

Clarence Thomas – Bush I – conservative

Ruth Bader Ginsberg – Clinton – liberal

Stephen Breyer – Clinton – liberal

Samuel Alito – Bush II – conservative

Sonia Sotomayor – Obama – (too early to tell, but considered extremely liberal)

….

hmmm — now, of course, not every ruling will have every justice voting the way i just described them above, but those are most certainly their leanings…and by my count, that’s at least 5-4 “conservative”

not sure how that’s not considered a majority

jim — you wanna set me straight…or do i have that about right?[/quote]
It’s more like 4-4-1, with Kennedy as the tie.[/quote]

That’s more like it, Chris and Phil. Now back to unis?[/quote]
Sure, but one more thing…

As Phil said, “now, of course, not every ruling will have every justice voting the way i just described them above, but those are most certainly their leanings.”

Kennedy tends to cast a conservative vote more often than not.[/quote]

Should be noted that Kennedy voted to uphold Row v. Wade and authored the opinions invalidating laws against homosexual sodomy and laws taking away homosexual rights. If nothing else, would seem to prevent him from being considered “conservative”.

while not every ruling kennedy has made sides with the “conservative” view (perhaps he doesn’t always blindly vote), he has cast rulings that are more often than not, considered conservative leaning — (although he has ‘flip flopped’ on hot button topics like abortion, gay rights and gun control…he also cast the fifth and deciding vote in the gore/bush election of 2000 (which was actually a ruling on the “equal protection” clause — not a “vote” for president as has been widely assumed)

but i’ll allow that kennedy cannot always be considered a “conservative” justice, in the sense of “conservative versus liberal”

Carl G|
October 22, 2009 at 1:04 pm |

[quote comment=”355871″][quote comment=”355870″][quote comment=”355869″][quote comment=”355865″][quote comment=”355861″][quote]Not starting a political comment, just making a correction: the Supreme Court is not a conservative majority, althought the chief justice is a conservative.[/quote]

um…lets see

John Roberts (Chief Justice) – nominated by Bush the second – conservative

John Paul Stevens – nom. by Ford – considered liberal

Antonin Scalia – nom. by Reagan – conservative

Anthony Kennedy – Reagan – conservative

Clarence Thomas – Bush I – conservative

Ruth Bader Ginsberg – Clinton – liberal

Stephen Breyer – Clinton – liberal

Samuel Alito – Bush II – conservative

Sonia Sotomayor – Obama – (too early to tell, but considered extremely liberal)

….

hmmm — now, of course, not every ruling will have every justice voting the way i just described them above, but those are most certainly their leanings…and by my count, that’s at least 5-4 “conservative”

not sure how that’s not considered a majority

jim — you wanna set me straight…or do i have that about right?[/quote]
It’s more like 4-4-1, with Kennedy as the tie.[/quote]

That’s more like it, Chris and Phil. Now back to unis?[/quote]
Sure, but one more thing…

As Phil said, “now, of course, not every ruling will have every justice voting the way i just described them above, but those are most certainly their leanings.”

Kennedy tends to cast a conservative vote more often than not.[/quote]

Should be noted that Kennedy voted to uphold Row v. Wade and authored the opinions invalidating laws against homosexual sodomy and laws taking away homosexual rights. If nothing else, would seem to prevent him from being considered “conservative”.[/quote]

Sorry, meant “Roe”

Chris|
October 22, 2009 at 1:05 pm |

[quote comment=”355872″][quote]It’s more like 4-4-1, with Kennedy as the tie.[/quote]

while not every ruling kennedy has made sides with the “conservative” view (perhaps he doesn’t always blindly vote), he has cast rulings that are more often than not, considered conservative leaning — (although he has ‘flip flopped’ on hot button topics like abortion, gay rights and gun control…he also cast the fifth and deciding vote in the gore/bush election of 2000 (which was actually a ruling on the “equal protection” clause — not a “vote” for president as has been widely assumed)

but i’ll allow that kennedy cannot always be considered a “conservative” justice, in the sense of “conservative versus liberal”[/quote]
That seems like as good a place as any to put a bow on this debate.

JTH|
October 22, 2009 at 1:08 pm |

[quote comment=”355871″]Should be noted that Kennedy voted to uphold Row v. Wade and authored the opinions invalidating laws against homosexual sodomy and laws taking away homosexual rights. If nothing else, would seem to prevent him from being considered “conservative”.[/quote]
Right. Because stances on abortion and gay rights are the only two things to consider in determining “liberal” vs. “conservative” anymore.

[quote]Should be noted that Kennedy voted to uphold Row v. Wade and authored the opinions invalidating laws against homosexual sodomy and laws taking away homosexual rights. If nothing else, would seem to prevent him from being considered “conservative”.[/quote]

Next thing you know, it’ll be noted that Kennedy voted for the Gordon Fisherman uni’s…

Carl G|
October 22, 2009 at 1:20 pm |

[quote comment=”355875″][quote comment=”355871″]Should be noted that Kennedy voted to uphold Row v. Wade and authored the opinions invalidating laws against homosexual sodomy and laws taking away homosexual rights. If nothing else, would seem to prevent him from being considered “conservative”.[/quote]
Right. Because stances on abortion and gay rights are the only two things to consider in determining “liberal” vs. “conservative” anymore.[/quote]

No, I was simply stating that Kennedy’s opposition on two issues generally considered to be conservative makes it difficult to simply pigeon-hole him as a conservative or a liberal.

Carl G|
October 22, 2009 at 1:21 pm |

[quote comment=”355876″][quote]Should be noted that Kennedy voted to uphold Row v. Wade and authored the opinions invalidating laws against homosexual sodomy and laws taking away homosexual rights. If nothing else, would seem to prevent him from being considered “conservative”.[/quote]

you say that like it’s a bad thing[/quote]

Are you referring to his votes on those issues or being a conservative? lol

[quote comment=”355878″][quote comment=”355875″][quote comment=”355871″]Should be noted that Kennedy voted to uphold Row v. Wade and authored the opinions invalidating laws against homosexual sodomy and laws taking away homosexual rights. If nothing else, would seem to prevent him from being considered “conservative”.[/quote]
Right. Because stances on abortion and gay rights are the only two things to consider in determining “liberal” vs. “conservative” anymore.[/quote]

No, I was simply stating that Kennedy’s opposition on two issues generally considered to be conservative makes it difficult to simply pigeon-hole him as a conservative or a liberal.[/quote]
OK, fine. Refresh my memory. Where was it that I was trying to “pigeon-hole” him?

My point was this: while he is considered a “swing vote” his voting record is more on the conservative side of things than the liberal.

I was not saying that he’s a conservative and that’s the end of the discussion.

I would. And I challenge anyone who doesn’t vote for the Fisherman jersey as unpatriotic and anti-American. LOL[/quote]
When Long Island secedes from New York, should that jersey be the basis for its state flag?

Carl G|
October 22, 2009 at 1:29 pm |

[quote comment=”355883″][quote comment=”355878″][quote comment=”355875″][quote comment=”355871″]Should be noted that Kennedy voted to uphold Row v. Wade and authored the opinions invalidating laws against homosexual sodomy and laws taking away homosexual rights. If nothing else, would seem to prevent him from being considered “conservative”.[/quote]
Right. Because stances on abortion and gay rights are the only two things to consider in determining “liberal” vs. “conservative” anymore.[/quote]

No, I was simply stating that Kennedy’s opposition on two issues generally considered to be conservative makes it difficult to simply pigeon-hole him as a conservative or a liberal.[/quote]
OK, fine. Refresh my memory. Where was it that I was trying to “pigeon-hole” him?

My point was this: while he is considered a “swing vote” his voting record is more on the conservative side of things than the liberal.

I was not saying that he’s a conservative and that’s the end of the discussion.[/quote]

I would. And I challenge anyone who doesn’t vote for the Fisherman jersey as unpatriotic and anti-American. LOL[/quote]
When Long Island secedes from New York, should that jersey be the basis for its state flag?[/quote]

If it secedes, I nominate Phil as Governor. He can choose. As a Canadian, I am far from being an ideal Betsy Ross. LOL

stu|
October 22, 2009 at 1:34 pm |

hopefully I am not repeating. but check out the “sweaters” the Kingston Frontenacs trotted out for “Military Night”

I would. And I challenge anyone who doesn’t vote for the Fisherman jersey as unpatriotic and anti-American. LOL[/quote]
When Long Island secedes from New York, should that jersey be the basis for its state flag?[/quote]

Well, there is the 51st state movement, but it will never happen…Long Island would lose so much money from Albany and vice versa…taxes are insane as it stands right now for the island…it’s where most people spend their money instead of the Islanders…(note: I do/did like the Fisherman Uni…but as a Ranger fan, it makes for beating (POTVIN SUCKS!) a dead fish…

But if LI lowers taxes, maybe more than 9,100 people would have went to see them win a game finally (and Tavares scored the winning shoot out)

I’ve been taking advantage of the free preview package of NHL games and, naturally, checking out the uniforms. I still haven’t come to grips with the Reebok Edge system, but I realize that there’s no going back to the traditional sweater design. The biggest problem I have is with the uniforms featuring stripes at the bottom of the jersey (almost half of the teams have this). Because the jerseys have curved shirttails, the portion of the jersey hanging below the stripes gives the jersey an uneven and asymmetrical appearance.

In fact, I checked out the NHL Uniform site http://www.nhluniforms.com/
and discovered this entry for the Rangers for the first year of the system (2007):

“The Rangers carry over their existing jersey design to the new Reebok Edge uniform system. In the latter half of its first season, Rangers management — always resistent to change — ordered the edges of the curved tails to be hemmed underneath the jersey to make it appear that the tail is straight.”

The Rangers no longer hem their jerseys and, alas, have conformed to the system. The problem, however, still remains –for them and for the dozen or so other teams that still employ the bottom stripes. It’s particularly tough to mess around with an iconic design, but these teams need to redesign their uniforms to eliminate this flaw. I don’t mean a complete overhaul, I just mean some sort of adjustment — perhaps by incorporating the stripes into the bottom trim.

I wonder if anybody else is bothered by this and, if so, what solutions they may have.

[quote comment=”355892″]
I wonder if anybody else is bothered by this and, if so, what solutions they may have.[/quote]

Amongst a myriad of other things, it pisses me off. My solution? Tell Reebok that change for change’s sake is the epitome of asinine.

CCM, who they bought, had incredible uniforms before Reebok bought the company. Now? They are horri-awful (thanks, Shaq).

Chris|
October 22, 2009 at 1:43 pm |

[quote comment=”355892″]I’ve been taking advantage of the free preview package of NHL games and, naturally, checking out the uniforms. I still haven’t come to grips with the Reebok Edge system, but I realize that there’s no going back to the traditional sweater design. The biggest problem I have is with the uniforms featuring stripes at the bottom of the jersey (almost half of the teams have this). Because the jerseys have curved shirttails, the portion of the jersey hanging below the stripes gives the jersey an uneven and asymmetrical appearance.

In fact, I checked out the NHL Uniform site http://www.nhluniforms.com/
and discovered this entry for the Rangers for the first year of the system (2007):

“The Rangers carry over their existing jersey design to the new Reebok Edge uniform system. In the latter half of its first season, Rangers management — always resistent to change — ordered the edges of the curved tails to be hemmed underneath the jersey to make it appear that the tail is straight.”

The Rangers no longer hem their jerseys and, alas, have conformed to the system. The problem, however, still remains –for them and for the dozen or so other teams that still employ the bottom stripes. It’s particularly tough to mess around with an iconic design, but these teams need to redesign their uniforms to eliminate this flaw. I don’t mean a complete overhaul, I just mean some sort of adjustment — perhaps by incorporating the stripes into the bottom trim.

I wonder if anybody else is bothered by this and, if so, what solutions they may have.[/quote]
There is going back, it’s telling Reebok that it, and its Rbk Edge system, can go fornicate itself with their “innovations”

Steve Naismith|
October 22, 2009 at 1:45 pm |

The glove belongs to OJ Simpson.

EddieAtari|
October 22, 2009 at 2:01 pm |

[quote comment=”355872″][quote]It’s more like 4-4-1, with Kennedy as the tie.[/quote]

while not every ruling kennedy has made sides with the \”conservative\” view (perhaps he doesn’t always blindly vote), he has cast rulings that are more often than not, considered conservative leaning — (although he has ‘flip flopped’ on hot button topics like abortion, gay rights and gun control…he also cast the fifth and deciding vote in the gore/bush election of 2000 (which was actually a ruling on the “equal protection” clause — not a “vote” for president as has been widely assumed)

but i’ll allow that kennedy cannot always be considered a “conservative” justice, in the sense

As an attorney, I motion we return the postings to the topic of athletic aesthetics…

I would. And I challenge anyone who doesn’t vote for the Fisherman jersey as unpatriotic and anti-American. LOL[/quote]
When Long Island secedes from New York, should that jersey be the basis for its state flag?[/quote]

Well, there is the 51st state movement, but it will never happen…Long Island would lose so much money from Albany and vice versa…taxes are insane as it stands right now for the island…it’s where most people spend their money instead of the Islanders…(note: I do/did like the Fisherman Uni…but as a Ranger fan, it makes for beating (POTVIN SUCKS!) a dead fish…

But if LI lowers taxes, maybe more than 9,100 people would have went to see them win a game finally (and Tavares scored the winning shoot out)[/quote]
If Long Island wants to secede, then they’ll have to get in line. Staten Island (from the city) and the City of New York (from the state) were both here first.

I would. And I challenge anyone who doesn’t vote for the Fisherman jersey as unpatriotic and anti-American. LOL[/quote]
When Long Island secedes from New York, should that jersey be the basis for its state flag?[/quote]

Well, there is the 51st state movement, but it will never happen…Long Island would lose so much money from Albany and vice versa…taxes are insane as it stands right now for the island…it’s where most people spend their money instead of the Islanders…(note: I do/did like the Fisherman Uni…but as a Ranger fan, it makes for beating (POTVIN SUCKS!) a dead fish…

But if LI lowers taxes, maybe more than 9,100 people would have went to see them win a game finally (and Tavares scored the winning shoot out)[/quote]
If Long Island wants to secede, then they’ll have to get in line. Staten Island (from the city) and the City of New York (from the state) were both here first.[/quote]
But their flags won’t be as good.

[quote]Hey LI Phil – did you see my email yesterday with the scans?[/quote]

yes fred…thanks…i flagged it (if there’s space, i’ll run it this weekend) but forgot to reply…

check your email…in 4…3…2…1

seriously, STFU|
October 22, 2009 at 3:17 pm |

[quote comment=”355911″]Anyone complain yet that today’s comments aren’t uni-related and ask for the comment section to be shut down because of it?[/quote]
There have definitely been requests to shut down certain commentators.

[quote comment=”355917″]There have definitely been requests to shut down certain commentators.[/quote]I know, I put in one myself.

JTH|
October 22, 2009 at 3:19 pm |

[quote comment=”355909″][quote comment=”355907″] their best one was the LP that had “Lick my Love Pump” on it.[/quote]

lick my love pump was never released

it was the piece nigel played for marty debergi during one of his interviews…

part of an unreleased trilogy, a musical trilogy in d minor — which is the saddest of all keys[/quote]
…influenced by Mozart and Bach, and it’s sort of in between those, really. It’s like a Mach piece, really.

anotherguy|
October 22, 2009 at 3:22 pm |

[quote comment=”355915″]
Finally, my coke bottle glasses will have the perfect accompaniment. Thank you![/quote]
The NFL knit caps have a pattern variety available. I wonder if we can talk MLB into making one with a plaid pattern here?

I’d guess that Tampa has hats because they wore them in the 2008 World Series.

leon|
October 22, 2009 at 3:26 pm |

[quote comment=”355911″]Anyone complain yet that today’s comments aren’t uni-related and ask for the comment section to be shut down because of it?[/quote]

Like this one?

rpm|
October 22, 2009 at 3:26 pm |

hey teebz, remember when we were kids, and were in that ice show? i think you performed under the name congo, and i believe, if i recall correctly, i used the name patty. well i found some olde super 8 of it here

anotherguy|
October 22, 2009 at 3:30 pm |

[quote comment=”355923″]Like this one?[/quote]
Exactly!

Leon is posting non uni-related comments! I don’t even want to look at another site; much less do something else! SHUT DOWN THE COMMENTS!!

Leon is posting non uni-related comments! I don’t even want to look at another site; much less do something else! SHUT DOWN THE COMMENTS!!

;-)[/quote]
i meant yours

anotherguy|
October 22, 2009 at 3:34 pm |

[quote comment=”355922″]I’d guess that Tampa has hats because they wore them in the 2008 World Series.[/quote]
That would be the only reason-and more specifically their manager’s rather offbeat look while wearing them.

Still, I just don’t see them as selling well in the greater Tampa-St. Pete-Clearwater SMSA…

anotherguy|
October 22, 2009 at 3:34 pm |

[quote comment=”355926″][/quote]
i meant yours[/quote]
i know. that’s why i added the ;-)

anotherguy|
October 22, 2009 at 3:36 pm |

[quote comment=”355926″]
i meant yours[/quote]
i know. that’s why i added the ;-)

(I spent so much time getting the capitalization to match I screwed up the quote tags.)

I’ll fess up to being part of the digression session yesterday regarding the NFL and the possible results of it gaining anti-trust exemption status.

But it certainly does look like we’ve been forgetting to take our Tangendental Medication this week, doesn’t it.

(I know, I know, I’ve used that line before. But I like it. And it works.)

—Ricko

anotherguy|
October 22, 2009 at 4:05 pm |

[quote comment=”355930″]Because in Tampa they start scrambling for earlaps if it’s 55 degrees.
[/quote]A friend moved from Chicago to San Antonio, where they apparently have “bring your pet inside” warnings on the TV newscasts when it’s going below 40 degrees.

[quote comment=”355933″][quote comment=”355930″]Because in Tampa they start scrambling for earlaps if it’s 55 degrees.
[/quote]A friend moved from Chicago to San Antonio, where they apparently have “bring your pet inside” warnings on the TV newscasts when it’s going below 40 degrees.

It’s a different mindset, for sure.[/quote]

because it’s smart to keep them outside all night when it’s under 40?

anotherguy|
October 22, 2009 at 4:11 pm |

[quote comment=”355934″]because it’s smart to keep them outside all night when it’s under 40?[/quote]
Dunno.

But you don’t hear them making an announcement on the television news here until it’s below say, zero.

[quote comment=”355921″][quote comment=”355915″]
Finally, my coke bottle glasses will have the perfect accompaniment. Thank you![/quote]
The NFL knit caps have a pattern variety available. I wonder if we can talk MLB into making one with a plaid pattern here?[/quote]

[quote comment=”355825″][quote comment=”355822″][quote comment=”355809″]Paul – Enjoy Louisiana! If you want to know some good places to eat, let me know![/quote]

He’d better have breakast at Mother’s.[/quote]

I have, several times (debris!). But I’m not gonna be in New Orleans. Gonna be in Baton Rouge.[/quote]

Mike Anderson’s Restaurant not to far from LSU campus/downtown is pretty good seafood at pretty reasonable prices. Some LSU memorabilia, but not enough to aggitate anyone not an LSU kool-aid drinker. Mike was an All-American LB in late 1960s, in recent Bob Hope AA photos posted on UW.

Try the “Joliet Rouge” or the “Howard”, a broiled fish topped with lump crabmeat and mushrooms in a butter sauce. Big portions, Big Taste, under $25.00. Ask if they have Puppydrum fish available – that type works well with that dish.

Comes with a House Salad – their House dressing is an addictive garlic/parmesean/green onion/olive oil mix that will keep you up at night thinking about it weeks later. They sell pints to bring home for $5.00.

anotherguy|
October 22, 2009 at 4:33 pm |

[quote comment=”355938″]

Ok, Mariners fan. ;o/[/quote]

LOL! :-)

If you went as a one-legged mariner, it could be seen as a tribute to Captain Ahab.

[quote comment=”355949″][quote comment=”355946″][quote comment=”355941″]Looks like a little problem at UCF!http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4585723%5B/quote%5D“The university says it is working with adidas “in determining how this unique set of circumstances will work for both parties.”
IMHO, it should work like this:

He won’t wear adidas because Nike holds a special place in his family? So, what, he’s saying it’s based on religious reasons?

I really don’t get this (unless, of course, as Phil said yesterday they’re planning some kind of “test case”).

I suppose the next ludicrous thing out of his mouth will be, “I want to make it on my own, not as Michael Jordan’s son.”

If that ever does get said, then why isn’t he just wearing the adidas and concentrating on basketball?

—Ricko[/quote]
If a certain McDonald’s in your area can sell Pepsi alongside Big Macs, a son of Jordan should be able to wear Adidas. (Maybe make him “generic basketball sneakers?”)

Jim Bullard|
October 22, 2009 at 5:51 pm |

[quote comment=”355855″][quote comment=”355841″]As an attorney nay, American, the idea of the Supreme Court deciding what is and is not decent disgusts me even more than the ‘Redskins’ moniker itself.[/quote]

As an attorney, I’d have expected that you would understand that the Supreme Court is not, in fact, deciding what is and is not decent. Rather, the Supreme Court is deciding whether a particular group of plaintiffs have standing to challenge the trademark status of the Redskins name. Not decency, but standing is at issue here.

Now, if the Supreme Court upholds the plaintiffs’ right to sue — which the Supreme Court almost certainly will not, since denying standing is the chief instrument by which the activist conservative majority on the Supreme Court has been radically rewriting American law for the last twelve years — then decency will come into play in an appeals court hearing, and the Redskins will be toast. This is because trademark law prohibits the government from giving trademark protection to offensive or indecent marks, and has since the first trademark law was enacted in 1870.

Also, as an attorney, I would expect you to understand that there is no conceivable First Amendment or free speech dimension to the Redskins case. The Redskins’ right to call themselves the Redskins is not at issue. Even if the Skins lose their standing argument in the Supreme Court, and then lose the subsequent trademark appeal, the Redskins will still have the absolute free-speech right to call themselves the Redskins. All the team will lose is a government-issued license to use the courts to enforce a monopoly on the commercial use of the name and logo.

Crying “free speech!” over the Redskins trademark case is exactly analogous to crying “free press!” because the government doesn’t let Paul host this blog on government servers for free. The lack of government assistance to help you speak is not a restriction on your freedom of speech.[/quote]

If the Plaintiffs are granted standing, the result could end up with a court determining whether a mark is deemed so indecent that it should not receive basic trademark protection. If that happens, it means a court has determined because a (relatively) small group of people feel offended that a mark that has been protected since 1933 should be cancelled. If you can’t see the implications to our freedom of expression that such a decision would have, I say you are delusional.

I’ll grant you that I probably shouldn’t have used the phrase “as an attorney” because while my intent was to suggest that I am in a position to see the impact of overbearing government regulation on an every day basis, it gave you an opening to make an ignorant and sarcastic response incinuating that because I’m an attory I must know everything there is to know about every area of the law.

PyroMessiah|
October 22, 2009 at 5:56 pm |

I’m no PC nazi, but “Redskins” is a classless name, period. Nobody would accept a team named the “Blackskins” with a Shaka Zulu logo, or “Yellow Skins” with some Oriental caricature. The only reason the Redskins get away with it is because the number of American Indians is so small that they can’t be the “squeaky wheel” getting the grease.

I have zero issue with teams like the Chiefs, Braves, etc…but Redskins is patently racist and no amount of rationalization can change that. It shouldn’t be a legal battle for Snyder to show some class and change the name.

Josh|
October 22, 2009 at 6:00 pm |

Is it a good thing that when I saw Dominick Brown at the Fall League game last night the first thing I thought of was “I’ve gotta send this to uniwatch!”

[quote comment=”355953″]I’m no PC nazi, but “Redskins” is a classless name, period. Nobody would accept a team named the “Blackskins” with a Shaka Zulu logo, or “Yellow Skins” with some Oriental caricature. The only reason the Redskins get away with it is because the number of American Indians is so small that they can’t be the “squeaky wheel” getting the grease.

I have zero issue with teams like the Chiefs, Braves, etc…but Redskins is patently racist and no amount of rationalization can change that. It shouldn’t be a legal battle for Snyder to show some class and change the name.[/quote]

I’m sure you meant to say “Asian”.

PyroMessiah|
October 22, 2009 at 6:20 pm |

[quote comment=”355956″][quote comment=”355953″]I’m no PC nazi, but “Redskins” is a classless name, period. Nobody would accept a team named the “Blackskins” with a Shaka Zulu logo, or “Yellow Skins” with some Oriental caricature. The only reason the Redskins get away with it is because the number of American Indians is so small that they can’t be the “squeaky wheel” getting the grease.

The point was that it would be offensive, hence the term Oriental. Please try and pay attention.
I have zero issue with teams like the Chiefs, Braves, etc…but Redskins is patently racist and no amount of rationalization can change that. It shouldn’t be a legal battle for Snyder to show some class and change the name.[/quote]

I’m sure you meant to say “Asian”.[/quote]

leon|
October 22, 2009 at 6:21 pm |

“The only reason the Redskins get away with it is because the number of American Indians is so small that they can’t be the “squeaky wheel” getting the grease.”

If only they hadn’t wasted all that energy on acquiring casinos.

PyroMessiah|
October 22, 2009 at 6:21 pm |

[quote comment=”355956″][quote comment=”355953″]I’m no PC nazi, but “Redskins” is a classless name, period. Nobody would accept a team named the “Blackskins” with a Shaka Zulu logo, or “Yellow Skins” with some Oriental caricature. The only reason the Redskins get away with it is because the number of American Indians is so small that they can’t be the “squeaky wheel” getting the grease.

I have zero issue with teams like the Chiefs, Braves, etc…but Redskins is patently racist and no amount of rationalization can change that. It shouldn’t be a legal battle for Snyder to show some class and change the name.[/quote]

I’m sure you meant to say “Asian”.[/quote]

The point was that it would be offensive, hence the term Oriental. Please try and pay attention.

anotherguy|
October 22, 2009 at 6:22 pm |

[quote comment=”355952″]If the Plaintiffs are granted standing, the result could end up with a court determining whether a mark is deemed so indecent that it should not receive basic trademark protection. If that happens, it means a court has determined because a (relatively) small group of people feel offended that a mark that has been protected since 1933 should be cancelled. If you can’t see the implications to our freedom of expression that such a decision would have, I say you are delusional.[/quote]
I won’t go constitutional, but the ramifications of this being set as precedent would be enormous. Everyone who was offended by something would suddenly be in court.

And ironically, the number of items for sale labeled “Redskins” would multiply. The sales would still be there; the proceeds wouldn’t go to the NFL, that’s all. So from the point of view of “we shouldn’t have to see that word on the street” this lawsuit is counterproductive at the best.

The last time I was on this subject the rejoinder was “people are stupid”. That was meant as quite an intelligent argument. So I’m done now.

leon|
October 22, 2009 at 6:24 pm |

[quote comment=”355957″][quote comment=”355956″][quote comment=”355953″]I’m no PC nazi, but “Redskins” is a classless name, period. Nobody would accept a team named the “Blackskins” with a Shaka Zulu logo, or “Yellow Skins” with some Oriental caricature. The only reason the Redskins get away with it is because the number of American Indians is so small that they can’t be the “squeaky wheel” getting the grease.

The point was that it would be offensive, hence the term Oriental. Please try and pay attention.
I have zero issue with teams like the Chiefs, Braves, etc…but Redskins is patently racist and no amount of rationalization can change that. It shouldn’t be a legal battle for Snyder to show some class and change the name.[/quote]

I’m sure you meant to say “Asian”.[/quote][/quote]

The Redskins don’t use a caricature-that’s the Cleveland Indians. And Redskins fans don’t use the tomahawk chop as part of their activities, either.
Just sayin….

anotherguy|
October 22, 2009 at 6:26 pm |

[quote comment=”355949″]
I really don’t get this (unless, of course, as Phil said yesterday they’re planning some kind of “test case”).[/quote]
I just don’t know what sort of “test case” this would be, but it’s ridiculous for anyone who signs a D-1 LOI to say they are ignorant of shoe contracts and their restrictions, much less Micheal Jordan’s son.

How can you say you’re a good teammate when your first agenda item is “I don’t want to wear the shoes that everyone else is wearing, and which pay for a significant portion of everyone’s scholarship here”??

anotherguy|
October 22, 2009 at 6:28 pm |

[quote comment=”355947″]
What’s even more amazing is that they view the Rams as a possibility. Don’t they have a stadium that’s only like 10 years old???[/quote]FWLIW, apparently the lease the Rams have call for significant sums to be spent on upgrades to the St. Louis dome during the next five years-and it seems St. Louis doesn’t have that kind of money. So they could get out of the lease.

This does bring up a point for the mods, a column based on the best uni-based Halloween costume.

(I wasn’t here last Halloween so if this is an oldie but a goodie… never mind.)

PyroMessiah|
October 22, 2009 at 6:33 pm |

[quote comment=”355963″][quote comment=”355947″]
What’s even more amazing is that they view the Rams as a possibility. Don’t they have a stadium that’s only like 10 years old???[/quote]FWLIW, apparently the lease the Rams have call for significant sums to be spent on upgrades to the St. Louis dome during the next five years-and it seems St. Louis doesn’t have that kind of money. So they could get out of the lease.[/quote]

Wow. That would send a pretty bad message to communities considering building stadiums for their teams. “Build us a brand new stadium and we still might disappear ten years later”.

Adam|
October 22, 2009 at 6:33 pm |

[quote comment=”355821″]”Here’s a Halloween costume idea worth stealing: You can go as the ghost of Ted Williams.”

My only complaint would be that Teddy Ballgame wouldn’t have worn batting gloves…I still love this one:

[quote comment=”355965″]Wow. That would send a pretty bad message to communities considering building stadiums for their teams. “Build us a brand new stadium and we still might disappear ten years later”.[/quote]Depending on what kind of lease they sign, yeah.

But franchises have held Los Angeles over the heads of their own cities for so long it isn’t funny. If/when a team does relocate their it will take an arrow out of their quiver. And the “new” dome in San Antoinio is probably no better from a luxury suite basis than St. Louis, so… once LA falls, the franchise merry-go-round should slow down IMHO.

Chris|
October 22, 2009 at 7:02 pm |

[quote comment=”355959″][quote comment=”355956″][quote comment=”355953″]I’m no PC nazi, but “Redskins” is a classless name, period. Nobody would accept a team named the “Blackskins” with a Shaka Zulu logo, or “Yellow Skins” with some Oriental caricature. The only reason the Redskins get away with it is because the number of American Indians is so small that they can’t be the “squeaky wheel” getting the grease.

I have zero issue with teams like the Chiefs, Braves, etc…but Redskins is patently racist and no amount of rationalization can change that. It shouldn’t be a legal battle for Snyder to show some class and change the name.[/quote]

I’m sure you meant to say “Asian”.[/quote]

The point was that it would be offensive, hence the term Oriental. Please try and pay attention.[/quote]
N.B. All Oriental means is Eastern and it doesn’t have the same implications in a place like the U.K. Never forget that beliefs like that brought about “liberty cabbage”, “liberty steaks”, and “liberty measles”.

[quote] but the ramifications of this being set as precedent would be enormous. Everyone who was offended by something would suddenly be in court.[/quote]

do you really not find the term “redskin” offensive? are you fucking serious? if you understood the case however, it technically has nothing to do with the use of an offensive term — it has to do with trademark protection (although that is being challenged on the grounds that the particular trademark violates the standards of decency)

[quote]And ironically, the number of items for sale labeled “Redskins” would multiply. The sales would still be there; the proceeds wouldn’t go to the NFL, that’s all.[/quote]

and if the proceeds don’t go to dan snyder and the NFL, watch how quickly the team seeks a name change

[quote]So from the point of view of “we shouldn’t have to see that word on the street” this lawsuit is counterproductive at the best.[/quote]

counterproductive? while i’m not a fan of the terms “braves” or “indians” or “fighting sioux,” those terms are not repugnant nor derogatory in the way that “redskins” is…do you not see the difference? the fact that the NFL and dan snyder can no longer profit (via the trademark protection they currently enjoy) is not in any way, shape or form, counterproductive

[quote]The last time I was on this subject the rejoinder was “people are stupid”. That was meant as quite an intelligent argument. So I’m done now.[/quote]

good

unfortunately, this case is not about the racist and derogatory nature of the term “redskins,” but about whether the us supreme court will rule upon (or even hear) a lawsuit arguing that the “Redskins” trademark violates standards of decency…

so, it’s more about $$$ than what is actually the right thing to do…and the only way dan snyder will “do the right thing” is if there is money, or rather, a loss of it, involved

as other lawyers on this board have already opined, whether or not the supreme court decides in favor of the plaintiffs, it will have no bearing on whether dan snyder can continue using the term “redskins”…but it will decide if he no longer deserves the trademark protection he currently enjoys…if he loses that, look for him to suddenly grow a conscience, declare that it was “wrong” to “keep using” that name for so long, and hold a public naming contest to come up with a new name…if he wins, well then, the name is fine and everyone should just STFU

but it is often easier, and more profitable, to do what is easy than what is right

Paul: Nothing uni-related here, just wanted to offer my condolences on the loss of your friend.

I hope the funeral tomorrow offers you the solace of being in the presence of others who knew & cared about him. And even though you’ll be working, I hope the weekend brings moments of peace, reflection & joy.

leon|
October 22, 2009 at 8:17 pm |

It seems if there were a name change in Washington, the franchise and Snyder might actually profit from it. All those folk who bought skins gear would now have to buy (new name) gear. Might even be a change of uni color, meaning all new jerseys too. And while I am no fan of how snyder has ruined the franchise, he is not the only owner they have had who has resisted a name change. I get that this doesn’t make it OK. Perhaps there are costs associated with this proposed name change that I’m glossing over, which I am sure those who know about such things will point out. I just wonder if it is all about money.

Ray|
October 22, 2009 at 8:22 pm |

Has North Carolina ever worn all navy blue before?

Stuby|
October 22, 2009 at 8:27 pm |

[quote comment=”355979″]Has North Carolina ever worn all navy blue before?[/quote]
Those are awful.

butch davis introed the dark blue top last season, and im pretty sure that’s also when the navy blue pants made their first appearance as well…plus those stupid truncated things that appear to be half stripes

im not sure if this is the first time they’re appeared together
… but i hope it’s the last

Maybe a bit out of the blue/ off topic, but it’s Thursday night here in Toronto and I’m watching the Devils / Rangers game from MSG. Somebody please tell me that those are virtual ads for HDTV ( or some shit ) that I’m seeing ON THE GLASS behind each teams’ net…

I’ve never seen anything like this before. Really distracting. I really hope it’s a virtual ad, because it would set a very dangerous precedent if it’s not virtual. It’s bad enough that buses etc. get wrapped in those see-through ads. Don’t mess with my hockey!

Stuby|
October 22, 2009 at 8:57 pm |

So, if the Yankees make the World Series, will they be wearing two patches on their caps? I don’t recall what Yankee players had on their caps for the All-Star Game this year. Anyone?

tommy|
October 22, 2009 at 9:04 pm |

[quote comment=”355982″]Maybe a bit out of the blue/ off topic, but it’s Thursday night here in Toronto and I’m watching the Devils / Rangers game from MSG. Somebody please tell me that those are virtual ads for HDTV ( or some shit ) that I’m seeing ON THE GLASS behind each teams’ net…

I’ve never seen anything like this before. Really distracting. I really hope it’s a virtual ad, because it would set a very dangerous precedent if it’s not virtual. It’s bad enough that buses etc. get wrapped in those see-through ads. Don’t mess with my hockey![/quote]

Those ads on the glass are gone now, so obviously virtual Tv ads. Pretty damn annoying though. Sorry for barging in and/or setting off any alarm bells. Back to regular programming…

Plasnick|
October 22, 2009 at 9:08 pm |

Why the Redskins have not become the Pigskins by now is beyond me. It’s sport-appropriate, it keeps the Skins nickname, it works with the Hogs/Hogettes angle. Well, I can think of one reason, but I for one would promise never to call them the Balls.

Also, some sort of logo seems to have been peeled off of the centerfield wall in tonight’s ALCS game. Its outline is still visible . . . “Angels” was part of the decal. Anyone know what it was for and why it was removed?

butch davis introed the dark blue top last season, and im pretty sure that’s also when the navy blue pants made their first appearance as well…plus those stupid truncated things that appear to be half stripes

im not sure if this is the first time they’re appeared together
… but i hope it’s the last

this is how tonight’s game should look[/quote]
I will never understand why people feel the need to flock with classic looks. All you ever hear out of Carolina is “God’s a fan, that’s why he made the sky Carolina blue” and some clown gets a bright idea and you end up with this crapola.

Football especially. Football seems to be a game where the recruits respond to tradition and classic schools-hoops, much less.

Thomas Clark|
October 22, 2009 at 10:18 pm |

I have to say that as far as the UNC all dark goes, I don’t mind it on them. I think what makes it bearable is the Carolina Blue helmet and the lack of high socks. Those two things help to break it up enough that it doesn’t end up looking like the monstrosities that some pro teams wear.

anotherguy|
October 22, 2009 at 10:26 pm |

[quote comment=”355975″]
do you really not find the term “redskin” offensive? are you fucking serious? [/quote]
Yeah.

AFAIK, the majority of the Native Americans don’t find it offensive. I invite you to ask them if they’re “fucking serious”. Or if they “do not see the difference”.

…the fact that for three out of four Native Americans, even a nickname such as Redskins, which many whites consider racist, isn’t objectionable.

The Phoenix Indian High School’s newspaper is The Redskin.

(Betty Ann Gross, a member of the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux tribe) wants Indian mascots and the tomahawk chop discarded, but she has no problem with team names like … the Redskins.

[quote]and if the proceeds don’t go to dan snyder and the NFL, watch how quickly the team seeks a name change[/quote]
Be happy to.

I wonder what percentage of sales at NFL Properties the Redskins franchise currently represent, and what percentage of that comes from either their spear, or just the word “Washington”? And from that, how many people will just go cheap, vs how many will stick with what’s available at Redskins Park or their stadium pro shop. Won’t they still be able to demand royalties on “Redskins” using their distinctive typeface?

For that matter, I wonder why people who are buying Redskins paraphanelia today, right now aren’t as outraged as you?? Are they “fucking serious”??

[quote]good[/quote]
You really need to chill out. I really doubt the Supremes will even hear the case: so I doubt the current ruling will be overturned.

Like I said; arguing this here isn’t worth it.

LarryB|
October 22, 2009 at 10:47 pm |

It seems like North Carolina likes to wear those dark blue unis more often now.

I hope the funeral tomorrow offers you the solace of being in the presence of others who knew & cared about him. And even though you’ll be working, I hope the weekend brings moments of peace, reflection & joy.[/quote]

Very well put. Allow me to join in those sentiments.

Ricko|
October 22, 2009 at 11:06 pm |

[quote comment=”355991″]It seems like North Carolina likes to wear those dark blue unis more often now.

Decades ago the Tar Heels did wear dark blue.[/quote]

Yes, they did. And the baseball team still does.

Decades ago the New York Giants (baseball) wore lavender, or something like it. And the Dodgers wore kelly green.

Just sayin’, if you’ve been wearing it for a long time, it’s traditional. If you haven’t worn it for decades, it’s in your history, but it’s not “traditional”.

At this point in time, navy isn’t exactly “traditional” for NC football.

[quote comment=”355909″][quote comment=”355907″] their best one was the LP that had “Lick my Love Pump” on it.[/quote]

lick my love pump was never released

it was the piece nigel played for marty debergi during one of his interviews…

part of an unreleased trilogy, a musical trilogy in d minor — which is the saddest of all keys[/quote]
D minor? I’d vote for E minor. The B major chord – the dominant – is so intense . . .

Chris|
October 22, 2009 at 11:41 pm |

Watching the FSU UNC game I was thinking…wouldn’t it be nice to take that argyle like pattern on the UNC basketball uniforms and incorporate it into the football uniforms. Perhaps that pattern on Carolina blue socks?

Nick|
October 22, 2009 at 11:53 pm |

[quote comment=”355997″]Watching the FSU UNC game I was thinking…wouldn’t it be nice to take that argyle like pattern on the UNC basketball uniforms and incorporate it into the football uniforms. Perhaps that pattern on Carolina blue socks?[/quote]

That could be something that would work. why not?

Let’s get away from the cookie cutter templates.

Speaking of tonight, the Navy jerseys would have looked alot better with light Blue or White pants. Navy over Navy just Blahhhhhed the whole effect. It did not look good, and it did not look special – it just looked Blahhhhh.

Ricko|
October 22, 2009 at 11:55 pm |

[quote comment=”355997″]Watching the FSU UNC game I was thinking…wouldn’t it be nice to take that argyle like pattern on the UNC basketball uniforms and incorporate it into the football uniforms. Perhaps that pattern on Carolina blue socks?[/quote]

[quote comment=”355924″]hey teebz, remember when we were kids, and were in that ice show? i think you performed under the name congo, and i believe, if i recall correctly, i used the name patty. well i found some olde super 8 of it here[/quote]

In regards to the center red line in hockey from yesterday’s main entry…I was just watching Red Wings-Coyotes and they showed a clip from the last game in Winnipeg. The center line had red airplanes (Jets) bordered by two thin red lines. SO tough to find a pic online of it though.

butch davis introed the dark blue top last season, and im pretty sure that’s also when the navy blue pants made their first appearance as well…plus those stupid truncated things that appear to be half stripes

im not sure if this is the first time they’re appeared together
… but i hope it’s the last

That was the first — and, we hope, the last — time Carolina wears all-dark blue. The dark blue jerseys (introduced last year) with white pants on occasion are fine, since it’s a nod to what Carolina used to wear. Plus, dark blue has always been an unofficial color of Carolna’s. But it should be used sparingly! And not monochrome.

Not sure I like the white on dark blue on the road either. Lsat time was the first time Carolina has ever done that. (First time they ever wore Carolina blue pants was 1984 against Clemson.)